It's about damned time. If there's one good thing to come out of the economic crisis, it will be this. The cost of school books is absolutely ridiculous. I remember paying for the in college and thinking it was a fucking waste of money. Most of what you can find in a textbook can be found for free online anyways, so spend $50 or more per book when going digital makes much more sense?

I wonder how many other states will look at this as a viable option now.

_________________

That's why I torrent my books unless there's an online component required that necessitates the purchase.

I'm dubious that they can:

1) Get this rolled out in an organized fashion.
2) Manage costs effectively. It's the government, so I'm sure there will be a retarded amount of training and red tape involved. And that's for the teachers. Can you imagine training every parent of public school-age children in CA on how to use it? They'd have to, or parents couldn't help with homework.
3) Produce these devices in a cost effective manner. They are free? I couldn't find any information on the devices themselves from the link or the official site at CLRN. How many devices are planned? What's the timeframe? Will it actually make any difference at all when it matters, in the short term (my guess is no)?

How will a student with no internet access be able to study at home? There's more of those types of students than he may realize.

I think its a neat thought, but I don't know that the majority is ready for this.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

E-book readers might help there. They may also have to seriously reconsider how schoolwork is assigned. After-school computer labs/libraries aren't a bad idea either. And if it comes down to it, and a child just has no access at all, checking out a textbook is an option.

If they do away with homework entirely, I'll curse the fates for being born 25 years too early.

_________________

Yet one of the pros of this new device is how much more up to date they are. If it's not for every single child, 100%, the disparity between wealthy areas and poor areas will grow significantly bigger.

Huh. Interesting. I didn't know they'd stopped reading the textbooks in class entirely. When did that happen? I could have sworn my kids still actually had classwork.

_________________

I'm not following you at all.

It's going to be what? Something like an E-Book designed for kids? I'm sure the parents can handle it IF they want to. If they don't want to - and wouldn't help with a normal textbook, either - then sure, it's a great cop-out.



Storage on a portable device? Printouts?



Well, they need to be. It has to happen sometime. There's no excuse in this day and age for us to be following such a wasteful, inefficient, expensive and archaic system in our schools just because we're afraid that people will be scared of something new.

Not only could this drastically cut costs for schools in the long run, it would also help with textbooks not being out-of-date with no way to update them.



Yeah, worst-case-scenario should be that a kid can still grab a book if all other options are exhausted.

Sadly you're not talking about some parents. You're talking about a program for all kids, for all parents, in the public school system. Your thoughts are way too idealistic. Public schooling needs to be all inclusive. And it will be, because political correctness is MOST prominent in the public school system.

I'm very skeptical that this will cut costs. And there is a very good excuse - California has no money. Zero. If it saves money, and I don't think it really will, because there are more costs than simply the unit price of the devices, it certainly won't be up front. The costs of introducing the new program, upgrading infrastructure, etc., are going to be huge up front and require money that California doesn't have.

How is that an option, exactly?

You can't have some kids on one set of material and others on another set, in the same class.

So we shouldn't use printed materials because some parents might not be able to read?

Really, we can't live in the past forever. Especially in a setting like a school, it's supposed to be about getting the kids prepared for the world in the best way possible, not barely squeaking them by with old materials, old ways of teaching, old techniques and old ideas because we're afraid one kid might not take to it.



I'm sure you can have a few printed versions of the digital materials.

I'm not sure I understand how textbooks are "wastefull, inefficient, and expensive."

I currently teach a class where students use software to do their homework over the Internet. Every year when we set it up there are always 10-15 students who do not have Internet access. I have to provide them with a computer lab. An adult has to be present, who has to be paid. I'm not convinced this is cheaper than a textbook that is bought once and replaced every 4-6 years.

And while I hate paying it too, giving the research that goes into a textbook, $100 isn't too much to pay for 6 years of use (our school currently rotates their textbooks every 6 years).

Do you really think a Kindle or something like it is a cost effective replacement? Do you realize how often a student will break these? My software program requires the use of a microphone for the students. The average 6th grade taking the class goes through 2 of those microphones in a year.

I don't see how having the book be electronic is going to be cheaper or any more efficent. To me, this reeks of "oooo gee technology, so it must be better!"

Why don't schools all have computer labs set up and staffed anyway, really? I mean, it's a serious, important part of just about every aspect of every job nowadays. Even a lot of jobs that you might not think of as technical require people to interact with computers now. So why isn't it a big priority that kids learn how to use them? (And by use them, I don't mean just as MySpace-Machines.)



I dunno, people are sending laptops to third world countries. I'm sure there's cheap devices that can be used for kids with no other way to access the data. And as a teacher I'm sure you know how often those expensive books get lost/damaged/destroyed too. (Hell, I can remember kids at my high school once having a textbook burning party at the end of their senior year!)



Microphone? Huh?

What Fribur said.

I'm also curious to know why anyone would assume they are automatically more accurate just because teh internets is involved. A government agency will still have to find acceptable sources for the content, just as they do now. The same agency that puts inaccurate textbooks in our kids hands right now. It's not like they're going to be using wikipedia, it will still be a private company with a contract to provide material for certain curriculums. Quite honestly, I'd assume they would likely just put up the latest versions of the textbooks, just in digital format.

To get new material into the curriculum will STILL require a process to review and approve. The only method that is different is delivery.

$100 per textbook. How many textbooks in a class in California? 40? 45? I'm probably shooting low, as that's not accounting for extra books for those that lose theirs, or damage them, or whatever. How many classes in a typical California that require texts? 100? 150?

Digital texts are easily updated, easy to carry (which is a big concern for me as a parent, since a child carrying 30 lbs. of books everywhere in a backpack is a health issue), and are less expensive.

And you don't need internet access. Start issuing thumb drives for them to put all their books on. No computer? Start a grant that gives families a low-cost computer for homework and study. A basic computer isn't expensive anymore. You'll spend less on the cost of one computer, a thumb drive, and the digital texts than you would for all the texts a student would use throughout school. And you have the added benefits of getting kids who aren't otherwise familiar with computers a chance to work on them.

Kids who don't get a lot of computer access are going to suffer for it as adults. This isn't a world you can get by in without some technological know-how.

_________________

Yeah, this is one of those topics where I don't understand why it isn't a bigger deal yet.

Darn it, didn't finish saying what I wanted to say.

Anyway, it's just funny that people use "making the poor/rich people gap bigger" as an excuse to not use digital materials, when in reality it would seem like the lack of exposure to said digital materials is what will really hold the lower-income people back at a later age.

I'm simply saying that you have to provide it to all.

I'd venture to guess that most schools DO have computer labs that are staffed.... *during school hours.* If you are talking about a book system that requires internet access, giving every kid the same availability to those texts would require labs open from 3 pm until kids go to bed. How will a student study for tests without internet access? Are you talking about some kind of massive day-care system where everyone without internet access at home gets to be there? How will kids get home? The same kids that don't have internet access generally have families that depend on bus systems to get their kids there, because they are single family homes with the parent at work, etc.... are we going to now run a bus system every hour from school to each kid's home that needs it? Think through the cost implications of giving every kid equal access to their textbooks, if they can only get it online.



Not as often as you apparently think. I know our school is very careful about them, because they are as expensive as they are.

I can do a comparison for you. My sixth grade class uses the previously mentioned microphones with their software they use for assignments. The microphones are $20 each. A sixth grade student goes through approximately 2 of them a year--- since they are electronic devices, they tend to simply not be as durable as books. That's $40 per student, per year, *just for a cheap microphone.*

Now let's look at the general music textbook I use with the 5th graders. We bought our textbook for the 5th graders for $75 each, and use it for 6 years before buying an updated copy. We bought 40 books and rotate them among the classes. In three years, I haven't had to replace a single one, and we use them every day. So do the math... what's the cost per student for that? One book services 3 kids per class, for six years. That's 18 kids using the book for $75.

The microphones are far more expensive-- surely you can see that. And I can't imagine that a digitial text, which still has to pay the same copyright costs to publishers and writers, and still has to pay for the research to update the texts, would even conceivably cost anywhere near $40.



lol... this isn't even close to a good comparison. First, the digital texts are going to cost nearly the same cost as the textbooks. Then, you are ADDING the cost of a computer apparently for every student. You create a "grant," forgetting that grant money has to actually come from somewhere and isn't grown in some kind of grant money farm. Sorry, but it has to be paid for too. And finally, your example assumes that a single computer is going to last a kid through 12 years of school. If the kid doesn't break it first (and they will), the computer itself will be completely obselete far before 12 years comes around. You'll be rebuying that kid his / her computer 2-3 times minimum in that time period, and that's assuming he/she never breaks it.



Of course, and schools are addressing this. I bet there isn't a high school in the country that doesn't have computer classes at this point, except for perhaps Amish high schools. There ARE computer labs at school, and students use them all the time. I'm not sure how requiring kids to use digital texts is some kind of vital component that creates computer literacy.

I like technology as much as any of you. I like using it in the classroom. I already use a LOT of technology in many different ways within my own classroom. However, I cannot see how digital texts, at least ones available only on a computer with internet access, would save money or be less efficent. Books still win on that front, IMO, in cost and efficency of giving kids availability to information.




I don't think you guys are realizing how un-simple a system based on an internet text would be, or the cost that would exist in implementing it. If you don't address the needs of students who don't have internet at home and just say, "oh well they go without texts," then you are creating an even bigger gap between the haves and have-nots than we already have.

This is why we can't have nice things, Fribur. Stop thinking of the problems, start thinking about solutions.

I don't understand the origin of the arguements in this thread about the kids needing internet at home / after hours computer labs. If the textbooks are downloaded into some sort of e-reader, why exactly would internet access be required to read them? The e-reader just becomes the replacement for 30 pounds of paper.

What am I missing? It seems like assumptions are being built into arguments that don't have support.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

I was arguing against the idea of not having an ereader, but only having them available online.

If you want to go the ereader route, then the only argument I have is against the idea that it would save money. In my opinion, students will break E-readers long before they would break a textbook, and they would have to be replaced. In addition, digital versions of books are not going to be significantly cheaper-- a large portion of the cost of a book is the writing and research of textbooks, which still remains with a digital copy. The additional cost of buying and rebuying E-readers I think will offset any savings for not getting a print book.

I like the idea of being able to choose and having both. I don't see why we can't have both and still have the "nice things" that Bzalthek talks about =p It wouldn't be too hard to get kids hooked on the e-readers anyway should they so choose, especially since it's such a cheap alternative. If it's that good an alternative, let the people who actually buy the books and e-readers decide for themselves.

Both would be fine with me.

There should be no reason to replace a device for that purpose that often, if at all.

When I was in high school, in 1993, we used Apple IIs to learn how to type. That's all we used it for.

Are you claiming that in 2005, 12 years later, the computer should be exactly the same, because it wasn't used for any other purpose?

Or, let's go another route. Are you claiming that a computer set up and created to be used by a 1st grader is still appropriate for a 12th grader? That's seems even more unlikely.

Push the big red button that Big Bird is holding up to get your Chemistry book!

There is no way, at the existing state of technological progress, that anyone in a school program would be happy with their kid using 12 year old digital technology to read a textbook.

I also still don't see any big benefit to doing the switch, and certainly no cost savings. I ask again-- what compelling reason is there to do it? Technology for technology's sake seems silly.

I've only used a few texts that were available as digital copies. They're pretty close to the cost of the hardcover version. If you consider buying used books digital copies are significantly more expensive.

The only time I've used one was for lab, and only because we could not have paper in the cleanroom.

I just don't see it being practical. Portable readers are expensive and fragile. Laptops encourage goofing off, as do PCs.

You're trying way too hard here. If anything, a reader of some sort is more analogous to a CD player than a PC.

How many impoverished families you think are going to sign off on a school issued PDA reader device when their little shitbrat dunks it in the toilet or breaks it over another kids head?

On a college level, we'll be buying 1 semester licenses to reader software instead of books, for the same price if not more that we pay for textbooks. Publishers will still want their cut. Add in another middleman who has to convert all that textbook shit to hard data format.

Great Star Trekky idea, but greed and irresponsibility will destroy this. A shame too because I would love to walk around with my own personal tricorder.

Look. California is fucking fucked right now. I can't post too much on these issues because my spouse is a state employee and current president of his union.

But we are REALLY FUCKING FUCKED.

The state budget is shit. There were measures to try to shore up the worst of it, and they failed miserably.

So what Arnold is trying to do right now is raise awareness of the problem, and keep the schools fucking running. One of the key factors in talking about this shit?

NO MONEY FOR BOOKS.

Schools already have computers (many through donations). So that technology is there. As far as providing students with a means to access the books like some form of PDA?

Unless kindle leaps forward to donate a kindle to every child...it ain't fucking happening.

This is all partially a threat. We can't afford books for the kids. We will switch to this format then instead, and here's the benefits of it. Print books may decide to slash prices to keep business...so we can buy the damned books. Or maybe Kindle, Sony or some other brand will want to be The One...and will decide that spending $50 million to provide every child with an e-reader will mean DOMINATION in the market and the parents buying shit through it.

But right now, California is fucking fucked. Which is one of the reasons I'm not letting go of a 2nd job I have with a guaranteed paycheck, instead of just being fully self employed. Because we're already on a -10% salary...and it looks like it may get a whoooole lot worse.

And as fucking bad as that would be for me personally, I can work enough hours to keep us afloat just on what I make. It would suck, but I could swing it. And I wouldn't have to, as my spouse has enough years in to get a check if it came to that (though 5 more years...it's free insurance and a healthier check!)

A lot of people we know won't be that lucky. Textbooks I'm sorry to say are only one concern out of so many right now in the state.

What's keeping a lot of shit going atm is the projections that in 2010 we might start pulling out. If the predictions were more dire...I think the layoffs would be extreme and we'd be at -20%+

It's not greed and irresponsibility that will destroy this type of program, it's being in the financial straits to push it...but not having enough money to back it that will smother it in the cradle IMO.

Unless a corporate solution presents itself...and Dell, Apple, and many others have always been generous at providing to schools. Maybe Amazon can dump off it's original kindles, or put together a bare bones model cheaply. IDK.

Oh and as far as the little shit fucking up the book as Givin suggests? That happens already. Replacing the actual techno-item if we're looking at cost...would be about as much as replacing a textbook. They're not cheap. A bigger problem isn't abuse it's normal wear and tear...kids throw bags and shit, and you can break an e-reader just by dropping it. A book can survive a drop, and bookbags being kicked and all sorts of shit.

_________________

Yep. You don't need a huge tech support organization for textbooks. Bad idea in a recession.

I have to go with Bz on this one, even if he isn't being serious. (I can't tell!)

The whole idea behind technology is that it can be cheaper and more effective. The technology is all there. There has to be a way to update things and make it work.

Just sitting around closing your eyes and saying it'll never work isn't helping much. Technology is such a huge part of EVERYTHING nowadays that it still just boggles my mind that people aren't demanding more education on that front in schools so that kids graduate with more skills than just "omgmyspace" and a bag full of useless electives that - for me at least - seemed to flood my 11th and 12th grade years.

Granted, most of what I'm talking about is well beyond the scope of this individual issue...I'm just sort of ranting about the issue of technology and education in general.

Failing is more serious though Bov. The problem is if you try to do something like this too early, and fail...it pushes it back TREMENDOUSLY.

If this could suceed well in say, 5 years, and we try it now and it flops really bad, in 5 years when it's possible and beneficial the naysayers will be SCREAMING about the failures and zomg haven't we learned from before blah blah blah.

Counterproductive, but a reality.

Switching mediums is the future, but it may not be good right *now*. =\

As far as computers being fertile grounds for fucking around and wasting time, the teachers need the education there. It's really not that difficult to deal with the worst of that and have it to the same level that kids fuck around, day dream and doodle now.

The biggest problems I've seen with technology is rampant cheating, and it infuriated me to no end. But that shit is going to go on whether someone's hiding a cheat sheet, or programming their calculator.

Also as far as impoverished students, something that REALLY blows my mind is in impoverished districts, where the students parents are on welfare...how many of them have cell phones.

_________________

Yeah, that's one thing that bugs me...people raise all these concerns about the technological side of things as negatives but seem to ignore the fact that they already happen with "normal" materials too.

Cheating? Goofing off? You think these things don't happen in classes with or without electricity?



Yeah, and that's a shame. Problem is, there will always be those naysayers and if they have their way we'll still be teaching our kids the same shit in the same way in the year 2250 and we'll still be churning out kids with no actual employable skills and still be ranked 25th place or some other terrible number in math/science among industrialized nations.

Maybe a couple generations from now, when the "Stupid, dangerous newfangled internet machine!" people all die off we'll start to get there.

That was a general "you", by the way, not YOU.

Californians have no one to blame but themselves on this. They voted against propositions that would have helped ease the budget crisis. It's typical "bread and circuses" shit and the state's voters should be ashamed of themselves. Schwarzenegger said something to the effect of the voters have spoken clearly and told him to do his job, not to bring these "complex issues" to him, but what they really said was "we don't want to pay for shit."

_________________

States would save so much money if they just hired people to write books along their state curriculums. Then they could pay someone else to print as many as they need fairly cheap. As it is right now someone is pocketing a lot of money per book. Cut that profit out and you save millions.

ugh, we've had the textbook discussion before.

the only people making money on textbooks are the publishers.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I'm the big naysayer here. I'm curious-- are you calling me one of these people? Because, you know, I use technology more than most teachers, and am always looking for new ways.... and because, you know... maybe I know what I'm talking about since I happen to actually be a teacher who uses textbooks...

I'm still waiting for someone to give a compelling reason why this would be *better* than a textbook, and a reason that would overcome the obvious impracticalities and money issues associated with this particular type of technology.

College kids? Absolutely, this could work. High School kids? *maybe* Elementary kids? Can't see how this would be better in any way.

Your "obvious impracticalities" haven't been all that convincing, really.

The Apple IIE bit was amusing.

So, let me just see if i'm straight on this. You're *actually* suggesting giving students laptop computers as the solution to textbook costs? That's your suggestion?

I'd like a flowchart as how you got to that conclusion.

That's why I asked. As far as I can tellt he only device-specific language you used was:

No, I don't think a "laptop" as we know it would be a viable option.

Though, I do wonder what an XO-1 without the wireless network or toys would cost.

the XO is currently, IIRC, sold under cost, so I doubt it would be any cheaper.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

If you can articulate a good reason why it's better and cheaper to switch, then I'll be happy to go along with it. So far you have not shown me why we should invest in the switch in any way. Digital copies, however you want to offer it, will still be the same price, and will be more breakable than books. Aside from the "oooo wow technology" factor, I can't see any solid reason to switch.

Some of the propositions were really bad. It wasn't 'the solution' you imply. Nor is our current situation the blame of 'teh voters'...and if it were I assure you I'd have nooo problems blaming them (prop 8 voting motherfuckers!).

There are a variety of reasons we have a 'budget crisis', and many of them are not new (harken 'round to ye olde days of Pete Wilson...). The legislature has the lion's share of blame here. The fucked economy taking second place.

And...I actually feel a little bad for Arnold. Understand, he's tried drastic moves before to both PUSH those responsible to work to clean up this mess...and make it clear how fucking dire things are...specifically when he threatened to put all state workers on federal min. wage (which is actually lower than CA min. wage, I don't know why he picked federal but whatever). Then the guy who signs the checks came out and basically said there's nothing Arnold can do to HIM, and he issues the checks so fuck Arnold...he'll still issue the correct paychecks.

This took all the power out of Arnold's play, and made him look like an impotent fool. Plus state workers now were all batshit at him, because that bullshit can cost people their homes if actually done for any length of time.

*sigh*

Basically Arnold has to do this, but he lacks the power to do it. That must be fun for him! The stuff he needs done is in the hands of a bunch of special interest dipshits who aren't of his party and don't give a fuck about statewide problems. Yay!

So, IMHO this is the latest 'ploy' to try to motivate. Yes, going digital WOULD be beneficial...if there was money for conversion AND it was a little bit down the road. In order for this to work, the same asshats who are dancing around gleefully cockblocking will have to get off their collective asses and do the needed work. Of course 'for the children' is a powerful issue. And no one can come in over Arnold and say 'No, we're not doing this. I'm just going to buy the textbooks anyway. That is all.' and pull out his rug.

But where it's fucked is it is fucking with education, and our education system is in dire fucking trouble atm too. There have been massive layoffs in many school districts, and many programs have been slashed due to lack of funding.

And now we're going to fuck with textbooks? Really?

*headdesk*

Oh it's going to be a lot of fun before July 1st. But I need to stop posting about this shit because I'm hardly an unbiased observer on this one. This shit directly impacts my pocketbook.

_________________

Bullshit.

I was a California voter for quite some time, and I know that the voters have consistently passed propositions to fund this cause or that research or whatever for years without wanting to pick up the tab. Every time someone mentions new taxes, California voters freak the fuck out. Yet they can't help but vote yes for new spending over and over again.

While I'm certain California's legislators have a good chunk of the responsibility, you can't possibly convince me that the voters don't share in the blame. Hell, even the legislative fuckups still fall on the voters: instead of holding their representatives accountable, the districts keep voting the same people in over and over based almost solely on party lines. Yes, there was gerrymandering involved, but there's a point at which voters need to recognize that they are just as culpable if they don't do something about it.

_________________

I'm talking about the last special election Tyral, which I guess you're not current on. That's what *everyone* is referring to as well when talking about the current crisis and the propositions being shit.

As far as new taxes go...not sure where you're getting that. Californians voted a new sales tax increase in the last regular election, among MANY other things, including some bond measures. It just doesn't impact the state budget.

Taxes is NOT the big problem with the state budget. Political infighting is fucking huge. Go read about Arnold VETOing *everything* in Jan. when Dems passed a shitload of stuff without a single GOP vote, the GOP moved to file lawsuits to prevent passage...but Arnold exercised VETO power. The imbalance of power right now and the lack of either side being willing to work with the other is a BIG fucking problem. Dems move to 'solve' it (not well)...they get blocked at the Gov. level. Arnold moves to solve it (not well, and he's really just been making threats to try to get a more bipartisan solution) and he gets blocked.

Meanwhile everyone else just feels like we're swirling down the drain.

But I'll probably bow out of the discussion, I *really* should not be posting my opinions online atm on this shit.

Ultimately though, the only solution is for both sides to stop the fucking horseshit. And the voters to be smart enough to get those who don't and put them out on their ass come election time (and there's enough anger that it well could happen.) Though there was also utterly retarded talk about a 'recall' on Arnold...who is termed out and soon out of office anyway. Yeah, let's spend MILLIONS of dollars on THAT stupid horseshit.

As far as the districts keeping some in office...it benefits them to do so. If you're not a state worker and you're not adversely impacted by the crisis and the guy is doing good for you and your region...they'll keep him or her in.

But I've NEVER suggested the voters in CA aren't to blame, and that they don't suck (hellooooo Prop . They're just not the main ones to blame for THIS specific mess. But for most people (and by that I mean CA voters) it's much easier to pick the figurehead to be pissy about, than to look to viable solutions.

What will save everyone is the fact that the recession looks to get a lot better next year. That and elections. It's just a matter of holding on until then. And since Arnold CANNOT do fucking shit if there's no money (Wilson issued IOUs...ARNOLD CANNOT)...if the money runs out, EVERYTHING SHUTS DOWN. So when the money gets low, he has no choice but to make cuts. Then he looks like the asshole while the legislature twiddles it's thumbs and divides Rome because when it gets real fucking bad they believe they can get away with whatever they propose.

Instead previously Arnold tried to threaten a pay cut and was blocked. Now he'll just slash services, budgets, and add more furlough days. The pay cut we're already under is actually more like 20-30%...if you include the fact that a pay raise was taken away, a previously negoitated raise (which STILL had them below cost of living increases ) of 10% was not implemented as promised because...well duh...and then everyone has 2 unpaid days off per month.

Oh and those unpaid days? You'd be surprised how many people are working those days, despite it hurting them financially and from a 'united worker' perspective. But when you have cases which will limitation out...and some fucker will walk because of case overload and money woes...tell that to a victims family. Or if they don't show up in court...etc.

But I REALLY need to shut up about that shit. And go work more overtime

Five more years...and we're done, he can retire next year, but 5 years gets a lot of perks. And the money will go further out of state. And a lot further if we leave the country.

Mmmm. 1,826 days-ish...

_________________

Heh. Might be because the taxes in California are a bit too high as it is. You should know that having lived there. California needs to stop spending, not raise taxes.

uh, kinda skimmed through this thread but I don't recall seeing it mentioned before. There is a middle answer to the availability of computer/internet access to those that can't afford it: the public library.

The public library systems are in a transitional phase now. They are trying to prove that they are not a wasted expense on the municipal budgets and keep getting slashed in every way possible -- and they are needed more than ever. Before too long the gap won't be black vs white it will be with computer access vs those that don't.

Anyway, I think the transition to digital textbooks is a hell of an idea with many hurdles and needs to be implemented.

I'm not trying to just be contrary-- I just am looking for someone to answer the question.

Why is it a hell of an idea?

Because turning this...


...into this...



...makes sense on a number of fronts. Easier to carry. Easier to update. Almost certainly cheaper in the long run (and might be so now, no one here really knows what kind of device they're proposing to use for this).

_________________

Easier to break. Not in color. *Significantly* more expensive. Requires huge up front investment, training and ongoing tech support.

I find that hard to believe and it's impossible to prove it one way or another right now.

Significantly more expensive, I'd disagree with. Especially if they are using more than one text book.